Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe idempotent read, yet the description goes well beyond them: it defines handledAt, the exact semantics of `waiting` (not handled, not spam, not over the monthly cap, within 14 days), that IP and browser details are withheld, and that each submission is wrapped in an <untrusted-data-…> tag because it is attacker-controlled form input. That last point is essential for an agent handling returned content and is not derivable from any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the dense semantics of handledAt/waiting are worth their length. The untrusted-data paragraph restates the same guarantee twice ('untrustedData says so: everything inside was sent by whoever filled in the form'), which is the one place the text could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: per-submission fields, the meaning of handledAt and waiting, omitted fields, time format, and the timeZone marker. An agent can interpret the response without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above it by clarifying that a bare YYYY-MM-DD in startDate/endDate spans a whole UTC day and that all times are ISO 8601 UTC, which resolves genuine ambiguity in date filtering. It adds nothing about limit/offset defaults, but the schema already covers those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'View submissions collected by a landing page form', and the usage sentence enumerates concrete use cases (leads, form fills, contact requests). It does not name or distinguish the closest sibling, export_form_submissions, so an agent cannot tell view-vs-export apart from the definition alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use when the user wants to check leads, see who filled out their form, or review contact requests' sentence gives clear situational context for invocation. However, there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned — notably export_form_submissions, which is the obvious candidate when the user wants the data out of the system rather than reviewed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.